Ice Keeps Racking Up Losses At The Appeals Courts On Mandatory Detention

A Boston-based appeals court is the latest to reject ICE’s bid to subject millions of people — most of whom have lived in the U.S. for years and have no criminal records — to the prospect of detention without bond.

A divided panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals concluded 2-1 that the Trump administration’s massive expansion of detention without bond was a distortion of decades-old immigration laws that were aimed primarily at recent border-crossers, not those who have resided in the country for years.

The administration’s unprecedented interpretation of ICE’s detention powers, adopted on July 8, 2025, ignited a tsunami of emergency lawsuits filed by people detained under the new policy. And judges across the country have overwhelmingly rejected the administration’s position, with more than 460 concluding it was a misreading of a 1996 statute while just 54 have sided with the Trump administration.

The deluge has left a trail of shattered families, strained courts, traumatized attorneys and a massive trail of legal rejection.

The first two appeals courts to consider the issue, the Louisiana-based 5th Circuit and the Missouri-based 8th Circuit, sided with the Trump administration earlier this year. But since then, appeals courts nationwide have sharply turned the tide against ICE’s position. The issue is teed up for Supreme Court consideration this fall, and both judges and attorneys expect the justices to jump at the chance to resolve an issue that has overwhelmed the courts for a year.

At the heart of the issue is a 1996 immigration statute that requires the detention — without bond — of all “applicants for admission” to the U.S. while they are “seeking admission” to the country. For decades, administrations of both parties applied this to people who had newly crossed the southern border. Those living inside the country could also be detained, but under a different section of the law that afforded them a chance for a bond hearing to prove they could live safely in their communities.

Last year, ICE adopted a new interpretation of the law, declaring that anyone targeted for deportation — who hadn’t been granted permission to enter the country — would be treated as though they were “seeking admission,” even if they’ve resided in the U.S. for decades. That decision was backed up in October by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a Justice Department-run panel that sets national policy for executive branch-run immigration courts that handle deportation proceedings.

But the 1st Circuit, like its brethren based in New York, Georgia, Ohio, California, Colorado and Illinois, concluded that this interpretation missed the mark and flew in the face of 30 years of unbroken practice by five presidential administrations, including Trump’s first.

“Over three decades, five administrations implemented the disputed statutes just as we conclude today that their texts require,” Judge Lara Montecalvo, a Biden appointee, wrote for the majority. “If [the 1996 law] created the largest increase in mandatory detention in this nation's history, as the government alleges, Congress, in our view, would not have sat back while the Executive branch implemented a grossly mistaken interpretation of that newly-amended provision.”

Montecalvo was joined by Clinton appointee Sandra Lynch. Trump appointee Joshua Dunlap dissented, contending that the administration’s view was simply a stronger interpretation of convoluted immigration laws — and that Congress’ intent when it passed the 1996 statute is not as clear as the majority contended.

“[L]ittle is to be gained by rehashing the arguments further,” Dunlap concluded, “the debate -- now well refined -- will doubtless be resolved by the Supreme Court.”